>muh new FCS
>muh unfair T:W comparisons
>muh untrained pilots
This thing is pathetic. It loses energy almost instantly. It can pull some high AoA shit but only for fractions of a second. Half a turn and it's stalling already. It's like an overloaded, underpowered hornet.
Here's an actual fighter jet for comparison
The only downside to the F35 is that it only has one engine
prove me wrong
>the only downside of x is that it is x
You would have to completely redesign it to fit 2 engines in it.
So its downside is that it's a new aircraft and not a variant of F-22? Well, it's true. But lockheebmart shills will now jump in trying to justify planning to spend a total of $1.5 trillion on something that could be managed by modifying the existing aircraft.
That thing was never designed to be an air superiority fighter.
It also showcase that the American design line of twin-tail designs is outdated. You can archive high AoA values but energy management and regaining is subpar to more modern concepts.
More modern concepts such as?
Except that it accelerates better than the Hornet.
>worst T2W fully loaded than the f18
>worst T2W with half fuel than the f18
yeah sure unless the f35 somehow deleted all of the physics laws it might accelerate quicker
you are forgetting something crucial about how usa operates
First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
It has to extend 15-20 seconds to get back to 350-400 knots from the edge of stall. It does this several times in the video. Even the hornet is better than that.
Delta-Canard.
The Eurofighter is basically that E-M Theory wet dream.
Went to the Avalon Airshow in Australia last week.. Had the F22 (flown by an aussie pilot on exchange with USAF) flying with the RAAF super hornets and F35. Tbh, it was a snooze fest. It's like they are just trying to smooth over wasting money on the F35.
When they had the F16's and F15's putting on a show it was at least worth the ticket price. Hell, just forget these merican jets altogether. Give me some Sukois or Migs. Least it'd be a good show.
Forgot to mention.. the big show the F22 did was flying straight up in the air.. Whooptie fuckin doo, lol. It couldn't bust a fuckin move, or they weren't allowed to?
>Terrible nose pointing and high AOA capability.
Yeah. Look at this vid, the bloody thing just keeps going no matter how hard the pilot throws it around:
>muh noise pointing
>when HMDs are a thing
What good is a pointable nose when you're stationary? Raw power and high G are what saves your ass in a fight against an enemy that knows you're there.
>Static thrust
>Not accounting for drag
F-18 pilots have said that the F-35 has better acceleration.
It would scare all the asians if did anything else
Su-57 is showing up on that French air show shit.
Let's laugh at that instead rather than question the capabilities of that you don't understand.
The Rafale has insane kinematics too
youtu.be
At one point the pilot deliberately dumps all his energy, floats at 90 knots and then accelerates out of it in a climb. In like 10 seconds back up to combat speeds.
Hard to believe desu
In before the crash lol
You can give a missile much much better launch parameters by neutralising relative velocity and aspect.
Most engagements that require high energy maneuverability are going to be inside the minimum engagement range of an over the shoulder ASRAAM shot.
A Eurofighter can win the rate game, however this takes time, which can allow other adversaries to join the fight, it also assumes a relatively passive enemy that lets you play to your strengths.
Getting a good solution != nose pointing. You clearly don't understand what pilots mean when they talk about pointability.
Noise pointing is when you pull an insane high AoA departure to put your nose on target. By definition this means your noise is pointing in a direction very different from your velocity vector. It also generally means you are basically stopped mid air after pulling it. It's useful for something like pulling off a high off boresight shot on a guy you can't reel in. But you can do the same with an HMD, the vector will be more or less equivalent.
Being able to nosepoint has fuck all to do with being able to outmaneuver a target and put yourself in a good position for a shot on it with good relative velocity vectors. The best dogfighters are jets like F-16 or Typhoon that can pull extremely hard G while keeping their speed up. This means they can keep up very high turn RATEs.
Planes like hornets have good pointability and tight turn RADIUS but lose energy very quickly. In a fight between equally skilled pilots the one with the better T:W and energy retention has a big advantage. That cheeky off axis sidewinder shot can nowadays be pulled off with an HMD without putting yourself into a stall.
Not relevant in an aircraft vs. aircraft scenario.
The Eurofighter will dictate the fight with the massive energy adventage.
And actually, the best planes in a dogfight are ones like the Su-35 or F-22 that can keep their energy, pull high AoA and then regain whatever they lost almost instantly. Look at this raptor pulling enough AoA to vape and ACCELERATING through it:
youtu.be
Angle-of-attack is remarkably high in the F-35, as it is for all the twin tailed aircraft, but of course it can not be exploited in the supersonic regime, where the limiting load factor is achieved at low values of AoA.
Also in the subsonic regime, the angle-of-attack itself doesn't mean that much, especially if past a modest 12° AoA you are literally going to fall of the sky! Excessive energy bleeding rates would operationally limit the F-35 well before its ultimate AoA is reached.
Eurofighter superb engine-airframe matching, in combination with it's High Off-Bore-Sight armament supported by Helmet Cueing, has already and consistently proven winning against any agile fighter.
Last, the F-35 is capable of supersonic carriage of bombs in the bomb bay, but the fuel penalty becomes almost unaffordable, while delivery is limited to subsonic speeds by the armament itself as is for the Typhoon.
Su-35 can't compete with modern airframes.
And the F-22 is by the general design characteristics inferior to the Eurofighter.
Typhoon test pilot responds to Lockheed F-35 claims, Northrop adds ground fire detection capability to DAS cameras By Dave Majumdar 11 Feb 2013
flightglobal.com
"...Anyways, the Typhoon has always been an aerodynamic sports car of sorts, so I'm not particularly surprised by what Cenciotti's source had to say. But, until we know more about the F-35 from the operational testers at Edwards and Nellis, it's hard to say for sure how the jet really performs in an operational setting. Read that story here
I remember talking to the Luftwaffe's Col Andreas Pfeiffer, commander of Jagdgeschwader 74, in Alaska last year during the Red Flag-Alaska exercises, and he was telling me about how the Typhoon could maintain Mach 1.2 or so (if I remember right, it was definitely at a good supersonic clip though) without afterburners even with the two external tanks, pylons and what not they were carrying. And if there is one thing you can say about the Typhoon, it's that it's fast.
The only thing I take issue with in Cenciotti's post is this minor point, but it could be that he just glossed over it for the sake of simplicity: he refers to the Typhoons taking on the Raptors at Red Flag, that's not entirely correct. The Raptors and Typhoons were both on the Blue side during the actual Red Flag-Alaska exercise; however they participated in a series of exercises prior to the Red Flag called Distant Frontier which included some basic fighter maneuvers encounters with the F-22...."
You know the rest.
>Terrible nose pointing and high AOA capability.
That is a very deliberate design decision. It is exactly contrary to EM Theory and energy conservation. If you pull high AoA you bleed all your energy instantly.
It is 2019, we have full aspect lock on after launch missiles. Nose pointing not required, really.
>The Rafale has insane kinematics too
The M88 has subpar thrust tho.
>
>>And actually, the best planes in a dogfight are ones like the Su-35 or F-22 that can keep their energy, pull high AoA and then regain whatever they lost almost instantly. Look at this raptor pulling enough AoA to vape and ACCELERATING through it:
>>youtu.be
Both are too draggy and to fat compared to a Eurofighter. Eurofighter thrust-to-drag and thrust-to-weight are by far superior to *any* other fighter. Also F-22 suffers from subpar armarment, neither the Sidewinder X nor the AMRAAM are particularly good missiles. They're still largely just upgrades of older, significantly worse designs compared to IRIS-T and Meteor.
Even a Su-35 has a significant advantage in armarment compared to any US fighter. They got scramjets on BVR and superior TVC on their short range IR missiles.
>Su-35 can't compete with modern airframes.
Wind tunnel testing time for development of the T-10 and Su-27 was insane, it is probably still one of the most tested airframes in the world. The initial T-10 barely fullfilled the requirements, so they went back to the drawing board and re-designed it entirely in a second round. The aerodynamics on these sukhoi designs is very well optimised by empirical design. Compared to the very simple and conventional F-15, it was far ahead of its time.
I don't see how it is vastly outdated. The airframe performs very well. With AL-41 engines i would expect excellent performance on par with any modern fighter design, given adequate avionics upgrades.
>The best dogfighters are jets like F-16
The F-16 loses to the Su-27 and even the more modern Su-30 loses out to the superior JF-17.
This just means that there is real world evidence of Chinese JF-17 being far better than American F-16.
>It is 2019, we have full aspect lock on after launch missiles. Nose pointing not required, really.
HOBS is not magic, you need the correct launch parameters or you will miss
>They're still largely just upgrades of older, significantly worse designs
Fucking seriously; the AIM-9X has almost nothing in common with an AIM-9M except that it's launched from the same rail, it's literally a completely new design.
The problem with the F-22 is that it can't que HOBS shots yet.
>They got scramjets on BVR and superior TVC on their short range IR missiles.
They still use R-27s and R-73s, the latter still uses old IR based seekers and is therefore by definition the WORST of all modern HOBS missiles.
Jesus Christ what is with these delusional EF stand, the design concept is literally from before all aspect IR missiles and it shows (like the F-16) it's by no means ultra modern or forward thinking.
Fucking slav and chinkposts.
It's not an air superiority platform.
>HOBS is not magic, you need the correct launch parameters or you will miss
Yeah it is pretty much magic. You'll have a convenient pop up in your HUD that this enemy fighter behind you is withhin IRIS-T envelope and the option to launch one merely at the press of a single button. You do not figure out envelopes manually, advanced software does that for you. How do you think IRIS-T hardkill works?
>Fucking seriously; the AIM-9X has almost nothing in common with an AIM-9M except that it's launched from the same rail, it's literally a completely new design.
When the soviet union collapsed and germany reunited, the german Luftwaffe inherited MIG 29 with the latest missiles. The test results were shocking, because the MIG 29 had far superior armarment, especially short range and HUD. So an (initially) joint program was launched, including the US and germany, to develop new missiles.
Germany dropped out of the joint program because they wanted to push the capabilities further than the americans, americans literally settled on some conservative upgrades while germany pushed the tech to the max. Which has lead to lots of delays and a long and expensive program, but is now producing superior missiles.
>They still use R-27s and R-73s, the latter still uses old IR based seekers and is therefore by definition the WORST of all modern HOBS missiles.
Literally >what is K-74M and besides the R-27 was the reason the west pushed for better missiles in the first place.
>Jesus Christ what is with these delusional EF stand, the design concept is literally from before all aspect IR missiles and it shows (like the F-16) it's by no means ultra modern or forward thinking.
You're not making any sense. Luftwaffe literally had MIG 29 with 180 degree capability R-27 in service during Eurofighter design phase. Design goal for the Eurofighter was to survive in ultra-high-threat environments with upgraded Mig-29 and Su-27 and S-300 equipped enemy. Elaborate or fuck off.
>They got scramjets on BVR
No they don't. Nobody does. Maybe ducted rockets?
>HOBS is not magic, you need the correct launch parameters or you will miss
And launch parameters have just about fuck all to do with which way your nose is pointing, moron. What matters is whether the missile is capable of making the maneuver kinematically. When you do nose pointings the absolute best you can do is basically pull the handbrake.
>trying to sneak this one in
No F-16 was lost. India showed off pics of their own dead mig.
>reddit spacing
>ausairpower chink posting
kys yourself m8. you ain't gunna win lmao
Meanwhile
This thing is actual the reason why the Eurofighter is ahead of American planes
>not account for drag coefficient
Comparison of drag coefficients of two different airplanes is pointless, since airplane Cd are calculated with wing area (extended to the fuselage centerline), not frontal cross section area. To be meaningful, you'd have to multiply each Cd by its reference wing area, then divide by its frontal area
The F-16 lost to a mock battle with an Su-27 over the Nevada desert while an Su-30 lost to a superior JF-17. Putting 2 and 2 together means that Chinese JF-17 is far superior to American F-16.
Just because the computer tells you when you can launch doesn't mean there isn't a min range.
If you are arguing the Eurofighter can always get a shot off before that, then you a basically arguing that all ACM is pointless and actually conceding the fight to the F-35 which has a much larger 360° engagement range with the Amraam launched HOBS.
> some conservative upgrades
It's a scratch designed missile, it only shares it's name with the other sidewinders; the IRIS-T may well be better in some areas but that doesn't mean the AIM-9X is just an upgrade.
>>what is K-74M
Not in service, to give you an idea think of the captor-E.
>You're not making any sense
The Eurofighter's aerodynamic planform was effectively finalised in the mid 80s, well before the west really knew anything about the R-73.
If you fire your missile at Mach 0.8 at 8G, while your target is flying the opposite direction, turning into you at mach 0.8 at 8G you will miss, that 0.8 Mach you are flying at all has to be cancelled out to hit your target (missiles do not have the wing area to take advantage of this higher energy state for turning, if they did then they wouldn't need TVC)your missile has neither the DeltaV, or the turning radius to hit this target, if it did, maneuvering combat would be completely dead and you would have to wonder why designers weren't designing for that world.
If you perform an instantaneous turn you can trade your energy to briefly get behind your target and you will get a shot that is possible albeit not guaranteed since now you and the target are travelling in closer to the same direction, since you sacrificed energy state for increased rates relative to your target and your missile has to do much less work.
This thread went to shit pretty fast
>It's like an overloaded, underpowered hornet.
Funny. Because it has been described by pilots as a hornet on steroids.
Reminder that the proper fighter of the future will need more than one engine to supply as much power as possible to its laser weapons and defensive systems. The F-35 is a cul-de-sac that will be passed by eventually.
Went? Not just was?
why do people say dumb shit like this.
Power output is not determined by the number of generators, it's determined by the total output of the generators.
Two small engines could easily less power than one big one.
>R-73s, the latter still uses old IR based seekers
>From 1994, the R-73 has been upgraded in production to the R-73M standard, which entered CIS service in 1997. The R-73M has greater range and a wider seeker angle (to 60° off-boresight), as well as improved IRCCM (Infrared Counter-Counter-Measures). Further developments include the R-74 (izdeliye 740) and its export variant RVV-MD.[7] Russia currently receives new improved air-to-air missiles on the basis of the R-73.[8]
>wanting Sukhois at an airshow
Well you'd certainly get your money's worth.
1/3
>Just because the computer tells you when you can launch doesn't mean there isn't a min range.
Min range? wtf you on about. Eurofighter is designed to do sustained 9G supersonic turns at high altitude, never slow down, never loose energy, never do high AoA and point nose. It literally is designed to zoom around at high speed with low drag insane thrust and shoot advanced missiles.
The criticism here was that it can't do high AoA well and can't point the nose quick - and i argued that it wasn't designed with that in mind AT ALL because it bleeds energy which makes you an easy target and modern missiles with full aspect allow lock on to anything as long as your 360 degree sensors can pick it up. No need to point your nose to shoot your machinegun like in WW2.
>If you are arguing the Eurofighter can always get a shot off before that
Before what? Min range? Fuck, in any air battle with semi competent pilots, both sides will get multiple missiles off. Multiple volleys of BVR shit exchanged, which will all be evaded by simply leaving missle envelope, be jammed with powerful ECM (BVR is 100% radar guided), or be shot down by IRIS-T hardkill. Then you merge for dogfight if both planes are still alive, and yes you'll shoot short range IR missile as soon as enemy is in good evelope, which is way before "min range".
You seem to have no concept of how modern A2A engagements work.
>then you a basically arguing that all ACM is pointless
Well, the top gun hollywood turn and burn you have in mind is entirey pointless, yes.
>and actually conceding the fight to the F-35 which has a much larger 360° engagement range with the Amraam launched HOBS.
2/3
AMRAAM has like 5% hit chance on an aware, defensive enemy fighter. You're not gonna AMRAAM a modern fighter, there is not enough kinetic energy in terminal phase of AMRAAM for any reasonable effectiveness. And an enemy fighter pilot with the good situational awareness sensor fusion of Eurofighter class enables, will not be in effective AMRAAM envelope, ever. He might bate the enemy to shoot one, and then evade. Which is trivial with all the massive computer assistant he has.
F-35 has no advantage, it has disadvantages. Shittier BVR missiles, less of them, way less fuel, and it is almost 2 gens behind in kinematic performance. The fight will be decided either by modern BVR missiles with SCRAMJET for serious kinetic energy for terminal phase maneuvers (so far only germany and russia have those) or short range missiles. Not by AMRAAMs. Lol.
>IRIS-T may well be better in some areas but that doesn't mean the AIM-9X is just an upgrade.
It is vastly superior. In fact it is so good it can be used as a hardkill system to defeat enemy incoming short range missiles to defend the plane. You simply have no clue about the industry.
>The Eurofighter's aerodynamic planform was effectively finalised in the mid 80s, well before the west really knew anything about the R-73.
You should read up on the Eurofighter development, you seem to know nothing about it.
>If you fire your missile at Mach 0.8 at 8G, while your target is flying the opposite direction
Eurofighter won't ever fly at Mach 0.8 if it can supercruise without burner at 1.2G comfortably. Meanwhile F-35 can't even pull 8G, limited to 7.5 by airframe structural limit and even further limited in thrust.
>turning into you at mach 0.8 at 8G you will miss, that 0.8 Mach you are flying at all has to be cancelled out to hit your target (missiles do not have the wing area to take advantage of this higher energy state for turning, if they did then they wouldn't need TVC)
3/3
If a Eurofighter can't nail something in a dogfight because of missile envelope constrains, then the thing chasing it can't nail it either. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
>your missile has neither the DeltaV, or the turning radius to hit this target
turning radius? You have no clue what you're on about.
>if it did, maneuvering combat would be completely dead and you would have to wonder why designers weren't designing for that world.
Well high AoA and nose pointing meme is truely dead, and i truely wonder why designers aren't designing for it.
Oh wait, with the Eurofighter, the Rafale and the Grippen we have 3 independent jets that all follow the same approach of low drag supersonic flight with high energy conservation. WEIRD.
I am convinced the vertial TVC on the F-22 is mostly supersonic trim drag reduction, and maybe a bit radar stealth by avoiding rudder movement. No combat pilot is ever gonna pull that nose pointing bullshit for real.
>If you perform an instantaneous turn you can trade your energy
You don't "trade" the energy. "trading" energy would be converting speed into altitude, or altitude into speed. You simply BURN it and turn your energy into heat. You give up advantage for one chance to point your nose and get a possible missile shot.
Stupid maneuver, and lots of combat pilots are on record saying that it is stupid.
>to briefly get behind your target and you will get a shot that is possible albeit not guaranteed since now you and the target are travelling in closer to the same direction, since you sacrificed energy state for increased rates relative to your target and your missile has to do much less work.
In theory, ignoring lots of factors, you have a point. In practice, nobody fights this way with a 100 million $ jet.
You instead retain your energy and maneuver into a proper position for a missile shot. You don't just force it on the spot when you feel like it.
sorry turbo Satan
Tldr
f14>f16>f22>f18>f35>eurofighter
Prove me wrong
Because nu-Jow Forums is full of opinionated morons
>No need to point your nose to shoot your machinegun like in WW2.
Nose pointable high drag maneuvers are suicidal in a gunfight. It's exactly the area where an E-M rate fighter like the F-16 or Typhoon would dominate.
The only kind of fight where draggy radius fighters have the edge is an edge case merge where both are pulling max G to get their missile off within no escape parameters. Completely ignoring the fact that superior E-M fighters will have the choice of the engagement.
back to the retirement home with you, boomer.
>Min range? wtf you on about.
For the missile idiot.
>You seem to have no concept of how modern A2A engagements work.
Except we aren't talking about that, we are talking about this hypothetical ACM merge, YOU started this.
If you want to talk about BVR, the Eurofighter's lack of stealthy datalink, relatively huge RCS, considerably worse ECM capabilities and still, to this day lack of a modern AESA radar are glaring flaws.
The Eurofighter legitimately cannot get a weapons solution to launch a meteor from outside of an AIM-120D NEZ thanks to the F-35s VLO and the Eurofighter's shitty radar.
>AMRAAM has like 5% hit chance on an aware, defensive enemy fighter.
Legitimately delusional; this isn't how PK works, PK depends on range and target kinematics: yes if you count missiles that were never intended to hit you have a low PK.
However an AMRAAM fired with the right parameters does have a high PK.
The Meteor is better yes, but the F-35 will have that before most Eurofighter's have a modern radar.
>You should read up on the Eurofighter development, you seem to know nothing about it.
BAE's EAP has an almost identical planform to the modern Eurofighter and it first flew in 1986.
>Eurofighter won't ever fly at Mach 0.8 if it can supercruise without burner at 1.2G comfortably.
Again we are talking about the merge here, if the Eurofighter tries to sustain a Mach 1.2 turn it will get destroyed.
>Oh wait, with the Eurofighter, the Rafale and the Grippen we have 3 independent jets that all follow the same approach of low drag supersonic flight with high energy conservation. WEIRD.
Except that both of these aircraft are considerably better than the Eurofighter in the high AOA regime (to the point where there is an upgrade kit for the Eurofighter to match their performance here) and they still represent the minority of modern fighter aircraft designs.
Truly implessive.
>Meanwhile F-35 can't even pull 8G, limited to 7.5 by airframe structural limit
It was unlimited to 9G about a year ago.
'You simply have no clue about the industry.'
>If a Eurofighter can't nail something in a dogfight because of missile envelope constrains, then the thing chasing it can't nail it either. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Completely wrong, you can look up engagement zones for some HOBS missiles, big dead zones in the rear sector of the aircraft.
>turning radius? You have no clue what you're on about.
Elaborate or fuck off
>Stupid maneuver, and lots of combat pilots are on record saying that it is stupid.
And F-18s beat F-16s and F-15s all the time in the merge by using them.
>You instead retain your energy and maneuver into a proper position for a missile shot. You don't just force it on the spot when you feel like it.
Or you angle-fight instead of rate-fight.
The thing with you Eurofighter nerds is that you don't accept that angle fighting exists at all (probably because your particular favourite aircraft can't do it) and it's infuriating because it's a tactic that people have been talking about (and using) for decades.
>>Meanwhile F-35 can't even pull 8G, limited to 7.5 by airframe structural limit
>It was unlimited to 9G about a year ago.
>'You simply have no clue about the industry.'
Only the A, not the B and C model. Besides, 9G limit on paper is meaningless if you have shitty TWR of .8 and lots of drag, F-35 simply lacks the thrust for sustained high G turns.
>Completely wrong, you can look up engagement zones for some HOBS missiles, big dead zones in the rear sector of the aircraft.
I think you should look up what "full aspect" means. IRIS-T is not "HOBS", it is full aspect. You don't even bother to read wikipedia before you get into discussions, yet alone any actual deep literature, do you?
>>turning radius? You have no clue what you're on about.
>Elaborate or fuck off
If an IRIS-T needs to do a radical turn after launch to engage a target in the rear quadrant, it won't start blasting full speed ahead and then slowly turn. It will turn almost instantanious in a 100G maneuver and then boost to speed. Turn radius is entirely irrelevant here, because it is maybe 3 missile lengths. Looks more like the missile actually flipping than turning. advanced TVC is quite something.
>And F-18s beat F-16s and F-15s all the time in the merge by using them.
There has never been, and will never be, realistic jet fighter mock combat. The effort to create the necessary environment for such mock combat would be similar in size to the effort of an entire jet fighter program itself.
>Or you angle-fight instead of rate-fight.
>The thing with you Eurofighter nerds is that you don't accept that angle fighting exists at all (probably because your particular favourite aircraft can't do it)
Inventing new vocabulary?
>and it's infuriating because it's a tactic that people have been talking about (and using) for decades.
Yeah, in WW2 for example ;^)
>Or you angle-fight instead of rate-fight.
So get slow and be killed?
>Only the A, not the B and C model.
Only the vast majority of them >:(.
>Besides, 9G limit on paper is meaningless if you have shitty TWR of .8 and lots of drag, F-35 simply lacks the thrust for sustained high G turns.
Again, completely ignoring 'instantaneous turning capability' as a metric.
>I think you should look up what "full aspect" means
Marketing buzzword?
>Looks more like the missile actually flipping than turning. advanced TVC is quite something.
That's not turning, that's nosepointing, it still needs to burn away the imparted velocity from the fighter(deltaV problem) and then it's going to struggle with being able to change DIRECTION (not orientation) fast enough to engage with a fighter in tight circle flow.
>Inventing new vocabulary?
Lol, come on dude.
You go even faster in a straight line, not sure I would recommend it though.
>angle fight
You don't understand kinematics, do you? The advantage an angle fighter is gonna have is never too big, and with modern high off boresight missiles being 20 degrees ahead in a once circle fight is not going to make much of a difference. The rate fighter will have the kinematic advantage in just about any other situation.
An angle fighter doesn't magically neutralize its own energy state when doing a departure. Yeah you get a bit of a boost for one shot when you are able to scrub off some speed and launch the missile off the rail on a better initial vector, but for this to make the difference between a kill and no kill you'd need to be in a very narrow range of conditions. The rest of the time it's either gonna be a no kill or sure kill for both a departing angle fighter or a rate fighter just using HOBS.
The nose pointing meme mattered in the short window of time when heatseekers were sufficiently capable to track and catch a high G high aspect target but could only target things in front of the aircraft.
>>Besides, 9G limit on paper is meaningless if you have shitty TWR of .8 and lots of drag, F-35 simply lacks the thrust for sustained high G turns.
>Again, completely ignoring 'instantaneous turning capability' as a metric.
Rightfully so. You need to rid your head of top gun and 60 degree boresight sidewinders.
>>I think you should look up what "full aspect" means
>Marketing buzzword?
There are no "dead spots" behind the plane, faggot. A Eurofighter is riddled with 360 degree sensors, if you come close enough to one that a short range missile shot into it's rear is a possibility, you're 100% tracked and your possible flight envelope is being projected by the computer already. It doesn't matter if a sensor looses track of you for a second, there is still more than sufficient target data to guide the IRIS-T in the proper initial direction, and the IRIS-T can independently then aquire a lock after launch.
You have a strange idea about modern jet capabilities.
>>Looks more like the missile actually flipping than turning. advanced TVC is quite something.
>That's not turning, that's nosepointing, it still needs to burn away the imparted velocity from the fighter(deltaV problem)
Man you're dense. If the Eurofighter is zooming away from a potential target that fast that an IRIS-T can't do a flip and burn to it, then the potential target won't be able to launch a missile in return anyways, because guess what
If the deltaV between EurofighterTarget is too big, the deltaV between TargetEurofighter IS ALSO TOO BIG.
>and then it's going to struggle with being able to change DIRECTION (not orientation) fast enough to engage
What you mean is velocity, not direction. Jesus.
>with a fighter in tight circle flow.
I thought we're talking F-35 here. No tight circles there ;^)
>Lol, come on dude.
You don't even know the basic terms, obviously your understanding is extremely limited and thus your partaking in this discussion is utterly futile.
>The nose pointing meme mattered in the short window of time when heatseekers were sufficiently capable to track and catch a high G high aspect target but could only target things in front of the aircraft.
Couldn't put it better.
Hi Pierre
This is the most dunning-kruger shit-eating retarded post I’ve seen on Jow Forums in the past year.
Now if we only could strip the F-16 of all that useless junk like radar.
>This is the most dunning-kruger shit-eating retarded post I’ve seen on Jow Forums in the past year.
LIES AMERICA STRONG
The Eurofighter is designed to have the properties in BVR and WVR situations always to stay outside of the enemy weapons' no escape zone while being able to launch it's own level.
To archive that the Eurofighter deploys various features.
Sensor fusion
Superior own weapons
High thrust to weight ratio
Super cruise
Aerodynamics designed for transsonic and supersonic regime
Incoming feature is the AESA radar with movable antenna so the Eurofighter can curve around the opponent's no escape weapon range.
Yeah funnily enough one thing muh angles crowd seems to ignore is that low drag high turn rate fighters are hands down superior in BVR.
You have no understanding of pK, you seem to think IRIS-T being full-aspect as opposed to HOBS is a positive, you don’t know the G-limits of current 3F jets, you say the F-35 doesn’t have a lot of fuel which is pants on head retarded, you use TWR as the end-all stat for energy retention, and you’re using airshow maneuvers to extrapolate ACM performance.
lol
>no stealth
Dropped
The joke is that the F-35 and Eurofighter is like the greatest combo you can have to archive air superiority.
The F-35 is filled with advanced passive sensors and can operate as forward mini AWACS providing the kinetic superior Eurofighters with target designations and battlefield awareness while the Eurofighters are engaging the enemies.
kek
>drag
are you seriously suggesting that the f35 has lower Cd than the f18?
the f35 compared to the f18 its like comparing an asian fit lady with a landwhale from texas
>ITT impressive eurocanards btfoing genderfluid shartplanes
Based.
I didn't know that the EF-2000 actually had fanboys. Holy shit
>If the deltaV between EurofighterTarget is too big, the deltaV between TargetEurofighter IS ALSO TOO BIG.
You got me here for a bit but then i actually ran through it in my head.
yes the DeltaV change is the same, however you are forgetting that the forward velocity of the missile is much higher for the tail chase missile than the over the shoulder interception missile.
energy is very important for missile manoeuvrability, missiles use their lifting surfaces in order to perform high G turns; TVC can turn you around quickly but the rocket motor is much slower than the lifting surfaces are at changing your velocity
for the over the shoulder missile, it needs to first neutralise it's imparted forward velocity and then accelerate back up to a high speed before it has good manoeuvrability, meanwhile the tailchase missile only has to accelerate a little bit from launch to reach a highly maneuverable speed and it's ability to pull G only continues to go up from there.
For me this whole thing is like an idea called AM:FM i heard once. You have AM: Actual Machines and you have FM: Fucking Magic
AM: IRIS-T, very effective HOBS missile, able to do over the shoulder interceptions.
FM: IRIS-T, able to perform high G intercepts with almost zero airspeed or even flying backwards!
So yeah, no. The IRIS-T definately has an R-min on targets behind it.
The F-35 has much less parasitic drag due to the internal weapons carriage and lack of necessity for drop tanks.
the f18 has much less drag to begin with this is a well known fact
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
why are you like this Jow Forums
>Modifying any lagacy airframe to operate for another 40 years for less than 1.5 trillion
I challenge you to prove me wrong
Not with stores dipshit
>F-18 flight performance characteristics
You need to compare it to something for it to be meaningful lol.
Regardless there are some reasons why the F-35 could have less drag.
Believe it or not a blobbier shape means a better surface area to volume ratio, which in turn means less wet area and therefore proportionally lower parasitic drag; this is why blended wing bodies are a thing (the F-35 heavily uses BWB, the F-16 uses a bit and the F-18 uses practically none), they enable you to squeeze more volume in whilst lowering surface area.
Add this to the F-35 being bigger and therefore benefiting from the cube square law and there could be a substantial increase in thrust to drag ratio here.
The F-35 is also more unstable than the F-18 and this enables it's horizontal stabiliser to act as a lifting surface at higher AOA where the F-18's is neutral or providing down force, this reduction in trim drag could be another advantage for the F-35 here.
overall the lesson here is that Simply eyeballing what looks sleek often leads you to the wrong conclusions about what actually is low drag.
Pic related is one of the most aerodynamically efficient cars ever made, yet it's shaped like a blob, largely to reduce wet area.
Not with equivalent stores dipshit
goddammit
Kek
>multirole fighter is less agile than a air superiority jet
who knew
That shit looks funny.
>F-22
>Legacy airframe
You're already challenged enough.
China fixed that issue.
I'd like for you to explain how only 187 F-22's are supposed to fill in for all of the F-16's and F-18's of the USAF, USN and USMC that the F-35 is replacing as they retire over the next decades, never mind that the F-22 serves a entirely different role from these aircraft.
>So its downside is that it's a new aircraft and not a variant of F-22? Well, it's true. But lockheebmart shills will now jump in trying to justify planning to spend a total of $1.5 trillion on something that could be managed by modifying the existing aircraft.
Reading comprehension.
>the f18 has much less drag to begin with this is a well known fact
I was trying to find this out the other day, does anyone know how various fighter from the last 50 years or so compare when it comes to drag at high transonic and supersonic speeds? Some things I read suggested they actually regressed a little as they stopped area ruling them as engines become more powerful.
based
How many squares have been filled now?